Tuesday, October 30, 2007

I realised recently that, and it came as a heavy jolt of exasperation, there exists in no small amounts, people who see their world in shades of bigotry.

how else do you explain statements like "repealing 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality" being expressed in parliament? in one breathe NMP Thio Li-ann linked how repealing 377a is akin to criminalsing the bible and koran, and yet she conveniently neglects mentioning that buddhism, which is more concerned with goodwill and harmfree actions, and Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality. and NONE of these religions believe in imposing their views on others.

This one wins for sure, where the author of the above quote compared sexual freedom to our eco system. and yes, delivered in the same 'i'm right and you're wrong' fashion "‘Conservative’ here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society." this is a parliamentary debate. try not to bring the lols.

she also said that repealing the section would be akin to "copy(ing) the sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West". but she fails to realise that 377a was a direct inheritance of western law. In fact, most asian countries like HK, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Japan, thailand do not have such laws incriminating homosexual acts. Her championing its retention is then considerably ironic if the sexual ethos of the east was her goal.

She next downplays the liberal argument and says that "victims include both the immediate parties and third parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.". but fails to state what these 'public repercussions' are. i have to admit, i tried to envision her having sex and it scared me. unthinkable. BUT I DO NOT JUDGE! so dont judge people that have different sexual practices. public repercussions are a direct result of public actions and therefore sometimes require laws to regulate if third parties are harmed. like smoking in public and second hand smoke. private and consensual sex do not fall in that realm just as smoking is not banned in the privacy of one's home.

In the same breath, she also mentioned that "Science has become so politicized that the issue of whether gays are ‘born that way’ depends on which scientist you ask. You cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’. Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder". oh please, comparing decades old psychiatric research as "pseudo" science in order to further her homophobic agenda. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder in 1973. The World health Organisation and Chinese Society of Psychiatry, among other medical institutions, have since followed suit. I wouldn't count research as one of her strong points. Though her persecutory disposition happens to fall under a type of Delusional Behaviour under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), but who am i to judge?

Next, she asserts that "public health and safety is a legitimate purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex.Both these practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV which are public health problems." But had she simply asked around medical professionals, she would have realized that such diseases are not transmitted solely by oral or anal sex, nor contained in the homosexual community. In fact, a vast majority of new HIV infections are transmitted by heterosexual sex, drug use or mother to child transmission (MTCT). The grand fallacy of her statement is also in the assumption that the criminalizing it would lessen it's occurance. If aids prevention were her agenda, as she tries to portray, she would have already learnt that it is precisely this law that prevents Action of Aids in Singapore from distributing condoms and pamphlets promoting safe sex between men. you so ignorant Miss Thio!

but what i find most disturbing, apart from her argumentative fallacies and philosophical hypocrisy is her choice of hate words. "moral repugnancy of homosexuality", "pernicious", that homosexuality should be equated with promiscuity and hedonism, equating homosexual sex with incest and adultery and pedophilia. so much hate, hate-mongering and ignorance, these words hurt people, and it is reminiscent of the court-yard taunts one receives in primary school, only more vile and calculated since it is coming from an academic so respected in position.

as much as i respect her views, well, everyone has one, no one should be allowed to spew such hate as she does, especially not in the context of a parliament parliamentery debate. it makes me wonder where such hatred comes from. for some reason, i keep thinking of the final scene in American Beauty where the homophobic father finally comes out crying and hugging his gay neighbour. are you gay Miss Thio? self-hatred is such a terrible thing.

Posted by Dominic at 2:09 AM